Kewal Krishan Kumar v. M/S Roshan Lal Aman Kumar

CRM-M-27809-2025o o o o o -o1o-o INoTHEoHIGHoCOURToOFoPUNJABoANDoHARYANAo AToCHANDIGARHo 136o o o o o o o o o oooCRM-M-27809-2025o o o o o o o o ooDecidedoono:o22.05.2025o o KewaloKrishanoKumaro o o o o o oooooo.o.o.oPetitioner(s)o Versuso M/soRoshanoLaloAmanoKumaro o o o o oo.o.o.ooRespondent(s)o o CORAM:oo HON'BLEoMR.oJUSTICEoSANJAYoVASHISTHo o PRESENT:o Mr.oLokeshoNarang,oAdvocateoforotheopetitioner.o ****o o SANJAYoVASHISTH,oJ.o(Oral)o

1.o o PrayeroinotheopresentopetitionofiledounderoSectiono528oofoBNSS,o 2023,oisoforoquashingoofotheoimpugnedoorderodatedo20.03.2024(P-2),opassedo byo learnedo Additionalo Sessionso Judge,o Kurukshetrao ino Criminalo Appealo No.CRA-141-2024,otitledoaso'KewaloKrishanoKumaroVs.oRoshanoLaloAmano Kumar.,owhereby,olearnedooCourtodirectedotheopetitionerotoodeposito20%oofo theocompensationoamountoawardedobyoolearnedotrialoCourt.oPetitionerofurthero seeksoquashingoofotheosubsequentoorderodatedo10.12.2024o(AnnexureoP-3),o wherebyotheoapplicationoseekingowaiveroofotheosaidodepositowasodeclined.o

2.o o Learnedocounseloforotheopetitioneroarguedothatoasoaomatteroofo fact,owhichoalsooisobroughtotootheonoticeoofoCourtsobelowo(dealingowithotheo appeal(s))othatopetitionerohereinohasoinstitutedototalo61oappeals,oafteroheobeingo convictedo byo learnedo trialo Courto undero Sectiono 138o ofo theo Negotiableo Instrumentso Act.o Theo impositiono ofo conditiono ofo deposito ofo 20%o ofo theo compensationo amounto infacto requireso too beo examinedo aftero noticingo theo peculiarocircumstancesoasotoowhetheropetitionerobeingoaccusedoino61oappealso wouldobeoinoaopositionotoopayotheoamountoseparatelyoinoallotheoappealsooronot.oRASHMI

6o$e*er,onooanalysisohasobeenodra$nobyoe(aminingotheo%ir%umstan%esoinoitso entiretyooino*ie$oofotheola$olaidodo$nobyo6on7bleoSupremeo!ourtoino,a-booo Bhandari!socaseo"su#ra$%oasoalsooinotheo%aseoofo2.us/anotinter#risesoando anotheroVs.oTheoStateoofoPunjaboandoanother!%o2 2&oS''o(n)ineoS'o&* +%o LawoFinderoDocoIdo#268 2 2!o

3.oo o Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, along with his co-accused Sidharth Kumar, was prosecuted in a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pehowa, vide judgment dated 19.02.2024 (Annexure P-1), convicted both the petitioner and his co-accused under Section 138 of the Act. Subsequently, vide order dated 21.02.2024, the petitioner and the co-accused were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year, and were further directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,10,000/-, jointly and severally, to the complainant, within a period of two months from the date of the order. &.ooooooooo!ounselofurtherosubmittedothato%hallengingotheo9udgmentodatedo

18.02.202&,o theo petitionero filedo ano appealo beforeo theo !ourto ofo learnedo Additionalo Sessionso Judge,o Kurukshetrao ando thereupono learnedo Appellateo !ourto*ideoitsoimpugnedoorderodatedo20.03.202&')#2+osuspendedotheoorderoofo senten%eoquaopetitioner,osub9e%totootheodepositoofo205oofotheo%ompensationo amounto$ithotheoaidoofoSe%tiono1&-oofotheoA%t.oo/hereafter,opleaoofo$ai*ingo CRM-M-27809-2025o o o o o -o3o-o offo theo deposito ofo 20%o amounto haso beeno dismissedo video ordero datedo

10.12.2024(P-3)obyolearnedoAdditionaloSessionsoJudge,oKurukshetra.oDueotoo theofinancialoconstraints,opetitionerofailedotoocomplyowithotheoorderodatedo

20.03.2024,ohoweverocounselosubmitsothatoevenootherwiseoalso,oimpugnedo ordero datedo 20.03.2024(P-2)o ando 10.12.2024(P-3)o passedo byo theo learnedo AppellateoCourtoisoinoviolationoofotheolawosettledobyoHon'bleoSupremeoCourto ino Jambooo Bhandario vso M.P.Stateo Industrialo Developmento Corporationo Ltd.oandoothers,o2024(1)oSCCo(Cri)o90,owhereinoitohasobeenoheldothatowhileo consideringotheoprayerounderoSectiono389oofotheoCr.P.C.oofoanoappellantowhoo hasobeenoconvictedoforooffenceounderoSectiono138oofotheoAct,oitoisoalwayso openoforotheoAppellateoCourtotooconsider,owhetherotheoappealobeforeoit,oisoano exceptionalocaseooronot,owhichowarrantsograntoofosuspensionoofosentence,obuto withoutoimposingotheoconditionotoodepositoo20%oofotheofine/compensationo amount.oAnd,oifotheoAppellateoCourtocomesotootheoconclusionothatoitoisoano exceptionalo case,o theo reasonso foro comingo too theo saido conclusiono musto beo recorded,owhichoisomissingoinotheopresentocase.oItoisosubmittedothatolearnedo Courto belowo haso noto appreciatedo theo factso ofo theo caseo ando othero circumstanceso ofo theo petitioner,o aso pero mandateo ofo theo Hon'bleo Supremeo CourtoinoJamboooBhandari'socaseo(supra).o

5.oo o Afterohearingolearnedocounseloforotheopetitioneroandoperusingotheo record,o ito iso apparento thato sentenceo ofo theo petitionero waso suspendedo byo learnedoAppellateoCourtosubjectotootheodepositoofo20%oofotheocompensationo amountoawardedobyolearnedotrialoCourt.oHowever,opetitionerodidonotocomplyo CRM-M-27809-2025o o o o o -o4o-o o o ThisoCourtoisoofotheoviewothatodisputeoraisedothroughotheopresento petitionocanobeodecidedoinolimineoandowithoutocallingotheootherosideohere,o becauseotheowayothisoCourtointendsotoodisposeoofotheopresentopetition,onoo prejudiceowouldobeosufferedobyotheocomplainantoquaohisorights.oo

6.o o ThisoCourtofindsothatotheopleaoofotheopetitioneroisothatoimpugnedo orderso datedo 20.03.2024(P-2)o ando 10.12.2024(P-3)o o passedo byo learnedo Additionalo Sessionso Judge,o o Kurukshetrao areo withouto adheringo too theo directionsoissuedobyotheoHon'bleoApexoCourtoinoJamboooBhandari'socaseo (supra),oasoalsooinotheocaseoofo'MuskanoEnterprisesoandoanotheroVs.oTheo StateoofoPunjaboandoanother',o2024oSCCoOnlineoSCo4107,oLawoFinderoDoco Ido#2680202'.oo

7.o o TheoHon'bleoApexoCourtoinoJamboooBahndariocaseo(Supra)o andoMuskanoEnterprisesocaseo(Supra)ohasolaidodownocertainoparameterso whileoconsideringoSectiono148oofotheoActoforotheopurposeoofointerpretation.oIto hasobeenoheldothatotheoobjectoofoSectiono148oofotheoActoisonotomandatorilyotoo beofollowedorather,oitoisodirectiveoandotheodirectionotoopayoorodeposito20%oofo theo compensationo amount,o whicho iso maximum,o iso too beo passedo byo theo concernedoCourtoafteroexaminingotheofactsoandocircumstancesoofotheocaseo beforeoit.oo

8.o InoJamboooBhandari'socaseo(supra),otheoviewotakenobyotheoHon'bleo ApexoCourtoinoanoearlierocase,oi.e.oSurinderoSinghoDeswaloVs.o Virendero Gandhi,o(2019)o11oSCCo(oCri)o461',ohasoalsoobeenodiscussed,owherein,otheo objecto ando reasono ofo theo amendmento ino Sectiono 148o ofo theo Acto waso discussed.oTheoobservationsomadeoinoparaoNos.o5otoo12oofotheojudgmentoino

Jambooo1handari7so%aseo'supra+oareoreprodu%edoherebelo$<o "5. The paragraph `8' of the decision of this Court in the case of Surinder Singh Deswal Alias Colonel S.S. Deswal and Others (2019) 11 SCC 341 reads thus: -o "8. Now so far as the submission on behalf of the appellants that even considering the language used in section 148 of the NI Act as amended, the appellate court "may" order the appellant to deposit such sum which shall be a minimum of 20% of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial court and the word used is not "shall" and therefore the discretion is vested with the first appellate court has construed it as mandatory, which according to the learned Senior Advocate for the appellants would be contrary to the provisions of section 148 of the NI Act as amended is concerned, considering the amended section 148 of the NI Act as a whole to be read with the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the amending section 148 of the NI Act, the word used is "may", it is generally to be construed as a "rule" or "shall" and not to direct to deposit by the appellate court is an exception for which special reasons are to be assigned. Therefore amended section 148 of the NI Act confers power upon the appellate court to pass an order pending appeal to direct the appellant-accused to deposit the sum which shall not be less than 20% of the fine or compensation either on an application filed by the original complainant or even on the application filed by the appellant-accused under section 389 Cr.P.C., 1973 to suspend the sentence. The aforesaid is required to be construed considering the fact that as per the amended section 148 of the NI Act, a minimum of 20% of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial court is directed to be deposited and that such amount is to be deposited within a period of 60 days from the date of the order, or within such further period not exceeding 30 days as may be directed by the appellate court for sufficient cause shown by the appellant. Therefore, if amended section 148 of the NI Act is purposively interpreted in section 148 of the NI Act, but also section 138 of the NI Act. The Negotiable Instruments Act has been amended from time to time so as to provide, inter alia, speedy disposal of cases relating to the offence of the dishonour of cheques. So as to see that due to delay tactics by the unscrupulous drawers of the dishonoured cheques due to easy filing of the appeals and obtaining stay in the proceedings, an injustice was caused to the payee of a dishonoured cheque, who has to spend considerable time and resources in the court proceedings to realise the value of the cheque and having observed that such delay has compromised the sanctity of the cheque transactions. Parliament has thought it fit to amend section 148 of the NI Act. Therefore, such a purposive interpretation would be in furtherance of the Objects and Reasons of the amendment in section 148 of the NI Act and also section 138 of the NI Act.o

¶6What is held by this Court is that a purposive interpretation

should be made of section 148 of the N.I. Act. Hence, normally, Appellate Court will be justified in imposing the condition of deposit as provided in Section 148. However, in a case where the Appellate Court is satisfied that the condition of deposit of 20% will be unjust or imposing such a condition will amount to deprivation of the right of appeal of the appellant, exception can be made for the reasons specifically recorded.o

¶7Therefore, when Appellate Court considers the prayer under section 389 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 of an accused who has been convicted for offence under section 138 of the N.I. Act, it is always open for the Appellate Court to consider whether it is an exceptional case which warrants grant of suspension of sentence without imposing the condition of deposit of 20% of the fine/compensation amount. As stated earlier, if the Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that it is an exceptional case, the reasons for coming to the said conclusion must be recorded.o

¶8The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the original complainant is that neither before the Sessions Court nor before the High Court , there was a plea made by the appellants that an exception may be made in these cases and the requirement of deposit or minimum 20% of the amount be dispensed with. He submits that if such a prayer was not made by the appellants, there were no reasons for the Courts to consider the said plea.o

¶9We disagree with the above submission. When an accused applies under section 389 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 for suspension of sentence, he normally applies for grant of relief of suspension of sentence without any condition. Therefore, when a blanket order is sought by the appellants, the Court has to consider whether the case falls in exception or not.o

¶10In these cases, both the Sessions Courts and the High Court have proceeded on the erroneous premise that deposit of minimum 20% amount is an absolute rule which does not accommodate any exception.o

¶11The learned counsel appearing for the appellants, at this stage, states that the appellants have deposited 20% of the compensation amount. However, this is the matter to be examined by the High Court .o

¶12In these circumstances, we set aside the impugned orders of the High Court and restore the revision petitions filed by the appellants before the High Court . We direct the parties to appear before the roster Bench of the High Court on 09.10.2023 in the morning to enable the High Court to fix a date for hearing of the revision petitions. As the contesting parties are before the Court , it will not be necessary for the High Court to issue a notice of the date fixed for hearing. The High Court , after hearing the parties, will consider whether 20% of the amount is already deposited or not. If the Court comes to the conclusion that 20% of the amount is not deposited, the Court will re-examine the Revision Petitions in the light of what we have observed in this judgment. Till the disposal of the restored Revision Petitions, the interim order passed by this Court ordering suspension of sentence will continue to operate.o o

9.o Again,oinotheo%aseoofo5.us/anotinter#riseso"su#ra$%oHon'bleotheoApe(o CRM-M-27809-2025o o o o o -o7o-o Courtohasonoticedocertainoadditionaloparameters,owhichoareorequiredotoobeo lookedointooinosucholikeocases,owhichoreadsothus:o "27.o Weomayotakeotheodiscussionoaolittleoforwardotooemphasizeo ouro pointo ofo view.o Thereo couldo ariseo ao caseo beforeo theo AppellateoCourtowhereo suchocourtoiso capableo ofo formingo ano opinion,oevenoinocourseoofoconsideringoasotoowhatowouldobeotheo appropriateoquantumoofofineoorocompensationotoobeokeptoinodeposit,o thato theo impugnedo convictiono ando theo consequento sentenceo recorded/imposedo byo theo trialocourtoiso soo whollyo incorrecto ando erroneousothatoitoisoonlyoaomatteroofotimeoforotheosameotoobeoseto asideo ando thato orderingo ao deposito wouldo beo unnecessarilyo burdensomeoforotheoappellant.oSuchofirmoopinionocouldobeoformedo onoaoplainoreadingoofotheoorder,osuchoas,otheoconvictionomightohaveo beeno recordedo ando sentenceo imposedo withouto adherenceo too theo mandatoryoproceduralorequirementsoofotheoN.I.oActoprioroto/atotheo timeolodgingoofotheocomplaintobyotheocomplainantorenderingotheo proceedingso vitiated,o oro theo trialocourtomighto haveo rejectedo admissibleoevidenceofromobeingoledoand/ororeliedoonoinadmissibleo evidenceowhichowasopermittedotoobeoled,oorotheotrialocourtomighto haveo recordedo ano ordero ofo convictiono whicho iso itso ipseo dixit,o withoutoanyoassessment/analysisoofotheoevidenceoand/orototallyomis-appreciatingotheoevidenceoonorecord,oorotheotrialocourtomightohaveo passedo ano ordero failingo too discloseo applicationo ofo mindo and/oro sufficiento reasonso therebyo establishingo theo linko betweeno theo appellantoandotheooffence,oallegedoandofoundotoobeoproved,oorothato theocompensationoawardedoisosooexcessiveoandooutrageousothatoito failsotoomeetotheoproportionalityotesto:oallothat,owhichowouldoevinceo anoorderotoobeoinodefianceoofotheoapplicableolawoand,othus,oliableotoo beo labelledo aso perverse.o Theseo instances,o whicho areo merelyo illustrativeoandonotoexhaustive,omayonotoariseotooofrequentlyobutoitso possibilityocannotobeocompletelyoruledoout.oItowouldoamountotooao travestyoofojusticeoifoexerciseoofodiscretion,owhichoisopermittedobyo theolegislatureoandocouldoindeedobeocalledoforoinosituationsosuchoaso theseopointedooutoabove,ooroinoanyootheroappropriateosituation,oiso notopermittedotoobeoexercisedobyotheoAppellateoCourtobyoaojudicialo interpretationoofo'may'obeingoreadoaso'shall'oinosub-sectiono(1)oofo Sectiono148oandotheoaggrievedoappellantoisocompelledotoomakeoao depositoofominimumo20%oofotheofineoorocompensationoawardedobyo theo trialocourto,o notwithstandingo anyo opiniono thato theo AppellateoCourtomightohaveoformedoatotheostageoofoorderingodeposito aso regardso invalidityo ofo theo convictiono ando sentenceo undero challengeoonoanyovalidoground.oReadingo'may'oaso'may'oleadsotootheo textomatchingotheocontextoand,otherefore,oitoseemsotoobeojustoando properonototoodenudeotheoAppellateoCourtoofoaolimitedodiscretiono conferredobyotheolegislatureoandothatois,oexerciseoofotheopoweroofo notoorderingodepositoaltogetheroalbeitoinoaorare,ofitoandoappropriateo caseowhichocommendsotootheoAppellateoCourtoasoexceptional.oWhileo thereo cano beo noo gainsayingo thato normallyo theo discretiono ofo theo AppellateoCourtoshouldo leano towardso requiringo ao deposito too beo madeowithotheoquantumoofosuchodepositodependingouponotheofactualo situationoinoeveryoindividualocase,omoreosoobecauseoanoorderoundero challengeo doeso noto bearo theo marko ofo invalidityo ono itso forehead,o CRM-M-27809-2025o o o o o -o8o-o retentionoofotheopoweroofosuchocourtonototooorderoanyodepositoinoao giveno caseo (whicho ino itso viewo ando foro theo recordedo reasonso iso exceptional)oandocallingoforoexerciseoofotheodiscretionotoonotoordero deposit,ohasotoobeoconceded.oIfoindeedotheolegislativeointentowereo nototooleaveoanyodiscretionotootheoAppellateoCourto,othereoisolittleo reasonoasotoowhyotheolegislatureodidonotoalsoouseo'shall'oinsteadoofo 'may'o ino sub-sectiono (1).o Sinceo theo self-sameo section,o reado aso ao whole,orevealsothato'may'ohasobeenousedotwiceoando'shall'othrice,oito mustobeopresumedothatotheolegislatureowasowelloandotrulyoawareoofo theowordsousedowhichoformotheoskinoofotheolanguage.oReadingoando understandingotheowordsousedobyotheolegislatureoinotheoliteralosenseo doesonotoalsooresultoinomanifestoabsurdityoandohenceotinkeringowitho theosameooughtotoobeoavoidedoatoallocosts.oWeowould,otherefore,o reado'may'oaso'may'oando'shall'oaso'shall',owhereverotheyoareousedoino Sectiono148.oThisoisobecause,otheowordsomeanowhatotheyosay.o

28.oInosuchoviewoofotheomatteroandoforotheoforegoingoreasons,oweo areo unhesitatinglyo ofo theo viewo thatotheo impugnedo ordero ofo theo HighoCourtodecliningo too entertaino theo subsequento petitiono undero Sectiono 482,o Cr.o PCo ofo theo appellantso iso unsustainableo ino law.o However,oweodoonotoconsiderotheoneedotooremitotheomatterotootheo HighoCourtoforo considerationo ofo theo subsequento petitiono undero Sectiono 482,o Cr.o PC;o instead,oino ouro view,o justiceowouldobeo sufficientlyoservedoifotheoSessionsoCourtore-examinesotheoissueoofo depositobeingorequiredotoobeomadeobyotheoappellantsoinotheolightoofo theo lawo laido downo ino Jambooo Bhandario (supra)o ando theo observationsomadeohereinabove.o

29.o Consequently,o theo impugnedo ordero ofo theo HighoCourtodatedo 18tho May,o 2024o ando theo Sessionso Court'so ordero datedo 17tho October,o 2022,o stando seto aside.o Theo mattero iso remittedo too theo SessionsoCourtotoo re-examineo theo issueo ofo orderingo deposit.o Whetherosufficientogroundohasobeenomadeooutobyotheoappellantsotoo persuadeotheoSessionsoCourtonototooorderoanyodepositoisoleftoentirelyo tooitsodiscretionoandosatisfaction.oWeodoonotoexpressoanyoopinionoono theopleaothatotheoappellantsohaveosoughtotooadvanceobeforeous,olesto anyopartyoseeksotooderiveoanyoadvantage.oAllopointsoareoleftoopen.o o

10.o o ThisoCourtohasoalreadyoconsideredotheosimilaropleaoinoCRM-M-3861-2025,o'M/soDevganoRiceoandoGeneraloMillsoVs.oM/soJasbiroBhullaro TradingoCompanyoandoanother'(DateoofoDecision:o28.01.2025),owhereino theonon-speakingoorder,owithoutonoticingotheodirectionsopassedoinoJambooo BhandarisocaseosupraoandoMuskanoEnterprisesocaseo(supra),owasoassailedo andosameohasobeenopartlyoallowedobyoissuingodirectionsotoore-decideotheosaido issueo againo ino accordanceo witho theo lawo laido downo byo theo Hon'bleo Apexo CRM-M-27809-2025o o o o o -o9o-o

11.o o Afteroexaminingotheoimpugnedoordersodatedo20.03.2024o(P-2)o ando 10.12.2024o (P-3)o ando ino viewo ofo theo judicialo precedentso settledo byo Hon'bleo Apexo Courto ino Jambooo Bhandari'so caseo (supra)o ando Muskano Enterprisesocaseo(supra),owithoutocommentingoanythingoonotheomeritsoofotheo case,otheopresentopetitionoisodisposedoofoandolearnedoloweroCourto(Appellateo Court)oisodirectedotoore-examineotheocaseoinoviewoofolawolaidodownobyotheo Hon'bleo Apexo Courto ino Jambooo Bhandari'so caseo (supra)o ando Muskano Enterprisesocaseo(supra)oandoafterograntingoanoopportunityotootheopetitionero toomakeosubmissionsoregardingotheoexceptionalocircumstances,odecideoafresho whetheroitoisoanoappropriateocaseothatowarrantsowaiveroofotheorequirementoofo depositoofo20%oofotheocompensationoawardedobyolearnedotrialoCourt.o Theo impugnedo ordero datedo 20.03.2024o (Annexureo P-2),o wherebyo ao conditiono waso imposedo directingo theo petitionero too deposito 20%o ofo theo compensationoamountoasoaopre-conditionoforograntoofosuspensionoofosentence,o asowelloasotheosubsequentoorderodatedo10.12.2024o(AnnexureoP-3),owherebyo theoapplicationoseekingowaiveroofotheosaidodepositowasodismissed,oareoherebyo setoaside.o Itoisofurtheroclarifiedothatotheoorderograntingosuspensionoofosentenceo shalloremainoundisturbedoandoshallocontinueotoooperate,osubjectotoofurthero observationsoandofindings,oifoany,othatomayobeomadeobyotheolearnedoAppellateo Courtowhileoadjudicatingotheomatteroinoaccordanceowithotheoprovisionsoofo Sectiono148oofotheoNegotiableoInstrumentsoAct,o1881.o

12.o o Asofaroasotheosustainabilityoofotheoorderodatedo20.03.2023o(P-2),o CRM-M-27809-2025o o o o o -o10o-o videowhich,osentenceoofotheopetitionerowasosuspendedobyolearnedoAppellateo Courtosubjectotootheodepositoofo20%oofotheocompensationoamountoawardedobyo learnedotrialoCourt,oisoconcerned,oitoisoobservedothatothisoissueoisoalreadyo referredotootheoLargeroBenchobyothisoCourt,ovideoitsoorderodatedo08.04.2025,o passedoinoCRM-M-779-2025oandoCRM-M-8498-2025.o o o Untilotheseotwoopetitionsoareofinallyodecidedoinopursuanceotootheo referralo order,o operationo ofo theo impugnedo ordero datedo 20.03.2023o (P-2)o wouldobeokeptoinoabeyanceoandowouldobeothusosubjectotootheofinalodecision,o whichoisoyetotoobeotakenobyothisoCourtoinotheoaforementionedotwoopetitions.o o o Withotheoaforementionedoobservations,opresentopetitionostandso disposedoof.o o o Leto copyo ofo thiso ordero beo sento too theo Lowero Court,o foro informationoandonecessaryocomplianceo o o (SANJAYoVASHISTH)o JUDGEo Mayo22,o2025o o rashmio o oWhetherospeaking/reasoned:o ooYes/Noo WhetheroReportable:o ooooooooooooooYes/Noo o